‘Tailoring democracy’

• Sometimes you have to act as a politician. You don’t like that side of you when you have to do that?

Yes. I have to be involved in it, yes, I am involved in politics. I don’t very much like that. But for the nation one has to do many things, it’s a compulsion.

• Do you have a kind of deep rooted dislike for politicians or a distrust? Is that one reason why you’ve held on to this power that you can dismiss an elected government if you want to?

No, I don’t think, that’s true. My dislike for politicians is not universal. But generally the way politics has been run in Pakistan — and I would say even in your country — I don’t think there’s very much to follow. We need to have a better democracy and better politics.

• You once said, about the 12 year experience between 1987 and 1999, you called it a so-called democracy, a disaster for Pakistan. Is this distrust for politicians also distrust for polls and democracy?

No, not at all. I am in favour of democracy. Very much. But I am a believer that democracy has to be tailored to an environment, to Pakistani environment. The issue is of checks and balances. Our democracy is not mature, and I think many politicians do not behave in a mature manner. Therefore the requirement of checks and balances on everyone.

In our environment there are three power brokers: the President and also the Army Chief. Which is not, may be not, in your country. So, therefore, we have to tailor it according to what environment is in Pakistan.

• With checks and balances? But there are no checks and balances on you.

At the moment, at the moment. But once everything comes up, once democracy is established, real democracy, true democracy with checks and balances is established, there will be certainly a check on me. The National Security Council is very much a check on me. I would not be able to execute or implement 58/2b, that is dismissing the Assembly, alone. I am going to submit myself to the National Security Council… That will be a check on the President, which includes me if I am the President.

• You said if you are the President…like you look forward to a day you can retire?

Yes, indeed, I do. Nobody’s permanent and I even say that the issue of the President being also the Army Chief needs to be resolved. I do believe that one person should not hold two appointments. But I am holding it till I establish the democracy we are talking of. I don’t want to destabilise Pakistan. So I will continue in uniform. But once these institutions start playing their role, this separation of uniform from presidency must be ensured and I will do it.

• Do you have a time deadline for this?

No, I don’t. I don’t have a time deadline because I think once I give a time deadline, I believe in meeting it. I don’t want to go back on my words.

• Many people say you are a great communicator, but you live in a state of denial. Like when there is a problem, you deny it exists. In Agra, you said there’s no cross-border terrorism. Now of course it is there…You said that Pakistan was never involved in Kargil, then in 48 hours…And on the Al Qaeda, you said there’s no Al Qaeda in this country…Isn’t it better just to accept reality and then discuss a problem, rather than deny it?

There are grey areas, national interests have to be kept in mind. In every country these things take place. By the way, I never denied Al Qaeda. I have always been saying they may be hiding in our hills, even now they may be there. But to think that Osama and the whole lot of Al Qaeda is here, that is what I was saying is wrong. But on the other issues, there are, I think, much larger perspectives to it.

• These are tactical issues?

I think within this Indo-Pakistan relationship, there are many areas which are grey and such denials are done by both countries to guard self-interests.

• It is difficult to have a dialogue when you deny a problem exists.

No, I am sorry. I don’t accept this verdict at all about myself. I confront problems, I catch the bull by the horns straight.

• No, but you just said for certain national interests you do have to deny…

Every country in international relations guards its national interests and in doing so there are areas where you have to be extremely diplomatic.

• Elections were held in Kashmir last year. Believe you me this was a remarkable election. The people of Kashmir were told that if you vote we would shoot you and your family. They came out in hordes voluntarily, international observers were there, this was a genuine election, don’t live in denial on this…this time it was phenomenal to brave terrorists. Would you vote braving terrorists?

Well, I totally disagree with whatever you have said. Our information is it was the law enforcement agencies who were forcing: If you don’t go to vote we will get hold of you.

• You don’t agree? Then how can you discuss a problem?

I am 100 per cent sure of one thing, Kashmiris do not want to be part of India.

• But they vote, 45 per cent vote…

You as an individual couldn’t be going all over Kashmir. I am sorry to say that.

• We do opinion polls, we do surveys.

No, no, no. Opinion polls can all be manipulated. Opinion polls are all managed when you have 700,000 army in an area. Everything is managed.

• One of the things about Kashmir, while we are on it, the Americans say that the LoC…

Would anyone want to be with India when they are killing them? Have you seen their graveyards?

• Now let’s not get on to emotions. I am just talking about facts. 45 per cent…

I am talking about reality.

• Sir, these are old things.

It is old because you have said such a thing, trying to negate facts. The fact of the matter is 70,000 people have been killed. Do you think they can love you? Do you think they can be with India? Are they mad?

• Live in denial… I was just getting to the American’s saying the LoC should become a soft border. Do you think it is a possible way forward? That the Kashmiri families can meet each other?

Yes, one should have people to people contact, but that is not the solution.

• You agree with that as the first step?

It could be a way forward. One needs to analyse that.

• How do you react when people say to you, that the core issue for Pakistan and India is poverty, hunger, education, water in villages… Kashmir won’t get you out of poverty, hunger…

I disagree with you again. Kashmir is not standing in the way of improving your economy. Sir, in these 3 years, the maximum growth we have had is in the economy, in poverty alleviation…In the period of maximum confrontation on Kashmir, we have progressed. So Kashmir is not the issue.

• Without the Kashmir issue, you could have progressed much more.

Okay. All that you are saying are national issues. But when you are talking about bilateral relationship, Kashmir is the core of the problem, the core issue. (To be concluded)